Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At SciTech Daily: Scientists Solve an Origin of Life Mystery

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Seawater might have supplied the phosphorus required for emerging life.

Researchers from the Universities of Cambridge and Cape Town may have found a solution to the mystery of how phosphorus came to be an essential component of life on Earth by recreating prehistoric seawater containing the element in a laboratory.

Their findings, which were published in the journal Nature Communications, suggest that seawater may be the missing source of phosphate, suggesting that it could have been present in sufficient quantities to support life without the need for particular environmental conditions.

Phosphate is a crucial component of DNA and RNA, which are the building blocks of life, although it is one of the least common elements in the universe relative to its biological significance. Phosphate is also relatively inaccessible in its mineral form – it can be difficult to dissolve in water so that life can utilize it.

Scientists have long suspected that phosphorus became part of biology early on, but they have only recently begun to recognize the role of phosphate in directing the synthesis of molecules required by life on Earth, “Experiments show it makes amazing things happen – chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules if there is a lot of phosphate in solution,” said Tosca, Professor of Mineralogy & Petrology at Cambridge’s Department of Earth Sciences.

However, there has been debate over the precise circumstances required to create phosphate. According to some research, phosphate should actually be even less accessible to life when iron is plentiful. However, this is disputed since the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.

They used geochemical modeling to simulate the early Earth’s conditions in order to understand how life came to rely on phosphate and the kind of environment that this element would have evolved in.

The article goes on in this vein, but one wonders if it got written just for the sake of the overstated title.

For example, “chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules…” – but how much intelligent intervention is required by the trained chemists to reach their desired goal?

Also, “the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.” – Does this make any sense at all?

Again, why do intelligent scientists fall into the assumption that finding a chemical ingredient in the environment that is necessary for life equates with the ability of natural processes to form all the biomolecules necessary for life, and without guidance to arrange these into coordinated functionality in a microscopic locality so that the outcome is a living cell? So many steps in this imagined process are mediated against by the known laws of physics, that to suggest it happened naturally is to depart from scientific credibility.

Full article at SciTech Daily.

Comments
JVL at 24, Now HERE is an unbelievable claim. "You expect to change minds, I don’t." So, JVL, you're here for no particular reason? I think not. You, and a few others here, play a role: the fly in the ointment, the foot that trips up others who have good, credible things to say. Your previous posts are all the evidence anyone needs to reach that conclusion.relatd
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: You do realize that ignoring, and/or rationalizing away, any and all empirical evidence that contradicts your atheistic worldview is the polar opposite of ‘keeping an open mind’ do you not? I'm just not giving as much weight to certain arguments as you do. Just like you. You find certain explanations illogical and laughable. But you are convinced you are correct. I admit that I am making judgement calls based on known science and data and explanations that have fewer unknowns and assumptions. Also, it bothers you immensely that anyone can possibly disagree with you whereas I accept that some folks, like yourself, disagree with me. You expect to change minds, I don't. You don't actually like having a conversation about our differences whereas that's the whole reason I'm here.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
JVL, "I’m trying to keep my mind open" You do realize that ignoring, and/or rationalizing away, any and all empirical evidence that contradicts your atheistic worldview is the polar opposite of 'keeping an open mind' do you not?bornagain77
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Asauber: This Sci-Fi fantasy. For Entertainment Purposes Only. Not For Serious Discussion of Facts. I didn't say we would find such a thing; I just said IF we were to find such a thing. I consider alien visitors at all incredibly improbable. Not impossible but extremely unlikely given our knowledge of the universe and physics.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: JVL at 12 resorts to the ‘aliens did it’ dodge, “if alien visitors seeded life on Earth then there is the intriguing possibility we might, someday, find a cache or marker left by them” I'm not appealing to ETs because I think the possibility they are responsible is very, very low. NOT zero but very low. However, IF we found a record from them of what they did then I would change my mind. I'm merely discussing the possibility NOT saying it's even remotely likely. The trouble with the atheist’s ‘aliens did it’ dodge . . . Which I am NOT saying. I don't think it's the most likely explanation. JVL also asked, “if life only comes from life then where did the first life come from?” This is an old argument. Yes it is. And one we don't have an answer for yet. Unlike you, I'm trying to keep my mind open to the possibilities that have some probability of being right. Some more probable than others. And the ones that have more evidence and explain more are also preferable. As well JVL, in his question of ‘where did the first life come from?’, erroneously presupposed that matter existed for all eternity and discounted life existing for all eternity. I don't know if what we perceive as matter in our universe existed for all eternity. You just love ascribing views to people when they don't hold those views because it serves your own biased and prejudice view. You should try listening to what real people are actually saying instead of just reacting to a few trigger words or phrases.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
JVL at 12 resorts to the 'aliens did it' dodge, "if alien visitors seeded life on Earth then there is the intriguing possibility we might, someday, find a cache or marker left by them" Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, both dogmatic atheists, also both appealed to ETs rather than God to try to explain life. Dawkins put his 'aliens did it' dodge like this,
BEN STEIN: “What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?” DAWKINS: “Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.” – Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview (3:18 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
Francis Crick was much more explicit than Dawkins was as to why DNA must be designed by aliens, and stated his belief as such in his book “Life Itself”
“Life did not evolve first on Earth; a highly advanced civilization became threatened so they devised a way to pass on their existence. They genetically-modified their DNA and sent it out from their planet on bacteria or meteorites with the hope that it would collide with another planet. It did, and that’s why we’re here. The DNA molecule is the most efficient information storage system in the entire universe. The immensity of complex, coded and precisely sequenced information is absolutely staggering. The DNA evidence speaks of intelligent, information-bearing design. Complex DNA coding would have been necessary for even the hypothetical first so-called’ simple cell(s). Our DNA was encoded with messages from that other civilization. They programmed the molecules so that when we reached a certain level of intelligence, we would be able to access their information, and they could therefore — teach” us about ourselves, and how to progress. For life to form by chance is mathematically virtually impossible.” - Francis Crick – Life Itself – September 1982
Although to be clear, later Crick, although he had explicitly said that ‘DNA evidence speaks of intelligent, information-bearing design’, emphatically stated elsewhere that what we see in biology is not really designed.
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case” - Francis Crick – co-discover of the DNA helix - What Mad Pursuit - 1988
In short, Crick was living in denial of the design that he himself honestly admitted was in DNA and that he, self-admittedly, was 'constantly' seeing in DNA.
DNA itself literally screams, “I AM INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED” from every angle that you look at it. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/movie-night-with-illustra-a-whale-of-a-story-and-18-trillion-feet-of-you/#comment-745611
The trouble with the atheist's 'aliens did it' dodge is that atheists are wedded to the doctrine of methodological naturalism. A doctrine in which it is held that "minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only actor." Which, as Dr. Nelson further explains, entails "You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact."
Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson September 24, 2014 Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds. MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact. “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer? Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,, You are certainly an intelligent cause,, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,, ,,, some feature of "intelligence" must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set090071.html?
Intelligent agency of any sort, (whether it be God's, alien's, or your agency), and especially with their denial of free will, simply does not exist within the methodological naturalism of atheists. As George Ellis explained, "if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options."
Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will - July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: Horgan: Einstein, in the following quote, seemed to doubt free will: “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the Earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Do you believe in free will? Ellis: Yes. Einstein is perpetuating the belief that all causation is bottom up. This simply is not the case, as I can demonstrate with many examples from sociology, neuroscience, physiology, epigenetics, engineering, and physics. Furthermore if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/
Thus for JVL, Dawkins, and Crick, to appeal to the 'aliens did it' dodge in order for them to try to explain life is for them to inadvertently concede that physics alone is not sufficient to explain life and that therefore Intelligent agency of some sort is required to explain life. JVL also asked, "if life only comes from life then where did the first life come from?" This is an old argument. In fact, Pasteur himself addressed that argument when he stated, "You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter?
Louis Pasteur on life, matter, and spontaneous generation - June 21, 2015 "Science brings men nearer to God.,, Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,, “I have been looking for spontaneous generation (of life) for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation." - Louis Pasteur - [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.] https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/louis-pasteur-on-life-matter-and-spontaneous-generation/
And indeed, advances in science, (in Big Bang cosmology), have now shown that, contrary to what atheistic materialists believe, matter has not existed for all eternity.
Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Shoot, according to advances in quantum mechanics, matter did not even exist 10^-43 seconds ago,
Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables – Scott Aaronson Excerpt: “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!” http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Thus in conclusion, JVL, in his appeal to 'aliens did it' in order to try to explain life, inadvertently admitted that his atheistic naturalism is coming up short in explaining life and that intelligence of some sort is necessary to explain life. As well JVL, in his question of 'where did the first life come from?', erroneously presupposed that matter existed for all eternity and discounted life existing for all eternity. Yet his 'hidden assumption' that matter has existed for all eternity is now known, via advances in empirical science, to be a false assumption on his part. And thus, by my reckoning, that leaves life existing for all eternity.
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Marfin: If Aliens seeded life here then the law that life always come from life is not broken, so are you accepting this law. Nope because that just pushes the question of where life first originated anyway back away from Earth. You say we should check out every possibility , we one we have checked out very rigorously is life from non life and we have found it does not happen so do you believe it does and if so why. I believe not all the possible work has been done yet. Not even close. I also believe that just because you want to give up on some line of research doesn't mean it won't turn out to be productive. I also believe you have reasons for wanting to believe the work will eventually fail. That's called motivated reasoning. That means you're biased.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
"a cache or marker left by them explaining when and how and why" JVL, This Sci-Fi fantasy. For Entertainment Purposes Only. Not For Serious Discussion of Facts. Andrewasauber
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Asauber: igh. It would would not solve The Problem. It would just punt the ball towards “alien visitors”. It would solve the problem of how life on Earth started but, obviously, as has been noted many times before, it just kicks the can of how life first got started down the road.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
Tammy Lee Haynes: You said, “Life comes only from life” is NOT a law. Thats false, It IS a law, when properly stated in the Creationist Law of Biogenesis, to account for the self-evident fact that life originally did not come from life. Here it is: “Absent Divine intervention, life comes only from life.” Like I said, not a scientific law. NO law references something that is "self-evident". “Energy can never be created nor destroyed,” The law was first stated in the early 1850’s and has been confirmed coutless times since. Yup, we have found no exceptions. Even though people have tried. AND there are ancillary laws which have also been established. Note that the Creationist Law is similar. It is always observed. Kind of like the law that there are no black swans. Until some were spotted. When do you accept that the Creationists got it right? When they can explain at least when and how things were created. Where did the energy come from? If you were there at the time did this or that animal or plant just pop into existence? How many had to be created to give a sustainable population? What about their food sources? What was the sequence of plant and animal creations to ensure that each created type had a food source? You know, you have to actually explain how it all worked. Just look at this phosphorous nonsense. It’s been going on for almost 2 centuries. So, you 'cut bait' after 200 years? You just say: this is too difficult so we should quit. Lovely. It's amazing humans ever developed mobile phones if that's being scientific.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
JVL If Aliens seeded life here then the law that life always come from life is not broken, so are you accepting this law. You say we should check out every possibility , we one we have checked out very rigorously is life from non life and we have found it does not happen so do you believe it does and if so why. You see its either life from non life or life from life no matter where you go in the universe.Marfin
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
"For example: if alien visitors seeded life on Earth then there is the intriguing possibility we might, someday, find a cache or marker left by them explaining when and how and why they did that. Something like that could solve the whole problem!!" JVL, Sigh. It would would not solve The Problem. It would just punt the ball towards "alien visitors". Andrewasauber
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Dear JVL Most respectfully, youre 100% wrong. You said, "Life comes only from life" is NOT a law. Thats false, It IS a law, when properly stated in the Creationist Law of Biogenesis, to account for the self-evident fact that life originally did not come from life. Here it is: "Absent Divine intervention, life comes only from life." First the accepted definiton of a Scientiific law has 3 elements : A Scientific law is.............1) a statement, 2) of a regularity that is always observed in nature, 3) that can be shown to be false, if indeed it is false. Note that a Scientific Law can never be proven, but it can be disproven (falsified) if it is untrue. As an example, take the Law of Conservation of Energy. "Energy can never be created nor destroyed," The law was first stated in the early 1850's and has been confirmed coutless times since. It has never been falsified, but it could be (if it were indeed false) by making energy from nothing in a perpetual motion machine. Note that the Creationist Law is similar. It is always observed. It could be falsified, if it indeed it is false, by making a living organism out of non living matter. Of course, Scientists have been trying since 1859 to falsify it. And their results? We all know. A total 100% flopperroo. Anyhow, us Creationists, we got a question for our Atheist friends. When do you cut bait? When do you accept that the Creationists got it right? I mean you keep saying that Scientists are making progress, when they arent. Just look at this phosphorous nonsense. It's been going on for almost 2 centuries. How long are they going to keep this BS up? Another ten years? 100 yeas? a million? Let me guess. For as long as Scientists can get their snouts in the Origin of Life trough.TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Marfin: Whether by observation , experimentation , or any other research we have found this law to be absolute and life only and always comes from preceding life , so why do you guys believe that this is not the case ? I don't know how life got started on Earth, no one does. I think it's good to explore all the possibilities. Some you can test in a lab, some you need to get lucky by finding a 'smoking gun'. For example: if alien visitors seeded life on Earth then there is the intriguing possibility we might, someday, find a cache or marker left by them explaining when and how and why they did that. Something like that could solve the whole problem!! Why do you guys believe that at some time in the past that this law was broken. It's not a law. It's an observation which may or may not be correct. The problem is: if life only comes from life then where did the first life come from? You're welcome to answer that with data and observations. If we don`t get a response to this question, I think all here can assume you don`t want to open up your religious beliefs to scrutiny. It's not theistic to say: let's check on this or that idea however we can.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
and, Sir Giles ... let's don't forget, there is still the $10,000,000 OoL-price. You can win it, any scientist on this planet can win this prize Here you can apply: https://evo2.org/ PS: this prize has been offered for years, and according to the sponsor, nobody came even close to win the price, which only confirms my claims above. Moreover, i can assure you, if someone creates a simple life from scratch, in addition, that person wins additional $1,000,000 - Nobel price. So there is a lot of motivation :)))))))) So, Sir Giles, you have to ask yourself, where is the problem :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) PS: as to OoL-price, this is beautiful, from the OoL-Prize website: A question to the sponsor: "Do you believe it’s possible to win the Evolution 2.0 Prize?" https://evo2.org/win-ev2-prize/martin_r
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT
So a question for SEV, JVL et al, you guys follow the science , so science up to this point has shown that life only ever comes from preceding life . Whether by observation , experimentation , or any other research we have found this law to be absolute and life only and always comes from preceding life , so why do you guys believe that this is not the case ? Why do you guys believe that at some time in the past that this law was broken. If we don`t get a response to this question, I think all here can assume you don`t want to open up your religious beliefs to scrutiny.Marfin
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
Sir Giles @8
On one hand, IDists argue for ID by stating that scientists have not been able to creat life in the lab by manipulation environmental conditions.
Listen, Sir Giles, ... of course, the UD editor is right ... you Darwinists have to demonstrate (so we stupid creationists finally shut up), that SIMPLE life can emerge just-so, without any intervention from intelligent entity. Now focus: The fact is, that scientists ARE NOWHERE CLOSE to create life in lab ... they don't even started. This whole OoL-research is a fiasco. DO YOU GET THAT ? IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE, YOU WERE MISLED (by scientists) SCIENTISTS CAN MANIPULATE WHATEVER THEY WANT ... IT DOESN'T MATTER .... These things are so complex, that i personally doubt, that these can be done using common chemistry (you know, heating up, cooling down some chemicals in some flask ). The whole human approach is just wrong, that is for sure.martin_r
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
For example, “chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules…” – but how much intelligent intervention is required by the trained chemists to reach their desired goal?
On one hand, IDists argue for ID by stating that scientists have not been able to creat life in the lab by manipulation environmental conditions. And on the other hand, they argue that any progress they make towards doing so is the result of intelligent intervention. An excellent example of having your cake and eating it too.
Also, “the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.” – Does this make any sense at all?
Yes it does. Iron is good at removing phosphate from solution. In fact, ferric and ferrous iron are used in sewage treatment to reduce the phosphate levels in the effluent. But to make this happen they also have to pump huge quantities of air (oxygen) into the tanks. The pumping of this air is one of the major power consumers in the treatment process. The early oceans had plenty of iron but was not effective at sequestering phosphate because of the low oxygen.Sir Giles
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
Querius at 6, A rather extreme visual there. Darwinism has not resulted in the advance of the Biological sciences. Now that ID has developed a new worldview for scientists that is productive, I suspect evolution supporters here will still hang on, promoting a failed idea, until ID becomes popular. Then they will disappear like ghosts. Their words buried under clear evidence for design in living things.relatd
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Martin_r @1, You're forgetting that the skeptics here are not interested in expert information from a renowned synthetic chemist. So their opinions trump actual data. Darwinism is a failed 19th century rationalization for racism and colonialism. It's a science fantasy based on ideology and cherry-picked evidence. My hope is that some day, Charles Darwin's cold, dead hands will be pried off the throat of biology just as eventually were Aristotle's. -QQuerius
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
This is not science, it's wishful thinking.relatd
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
BobRyan: One of the laws that would have to be violated to get life from no life is energy. It cannot be created. Dead has no energy to convert into anything. So, the Sun radiates immense amounts of energy how exactly? It's not alive is it?JVL
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
One of the laws that would have to be violated to get life from no life is energy. It cannot be created. Dead has no energy to convert into anything.BobRyan
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
i found the following comment below Dr. Tour's latest presentation:
Given the high complexity of chemistry I find it so amazing how biological organisms can function so well for so long.
Exactly !!!!!!! Most people don't realize, that this is an engineering SCI-FI. According to Darwinists, first bacteria evolved 3.5 billions years ago, and it is still here, after 3.5 billions of years, the initial information despite it has been copied like trillions of times (so far) it is still intact and working. And Darwinian biologists DARE TO SAY, that no design is required to keep the information intact for 3.5 billions of years ? What is wrong with Darwinists ? Darwinism is a fake news.martin_r
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
:))))))))))))) And now, let’s get serious…. Dr. James Tour’s latest presentation: https://youtu.be/v36_v4hsB-Ymartin_r
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply